The Last-Ditch Attack Against Hagel’s Opponents: ‘McCarthyites’

The Nation is a leftist magazine of opinion. But its arguments also turn up in the New York Times — whose editors claim their paper and its point of view as mainstream, although it is largely indistinguishable in its analysis from The Nation, and in its regular dedication of its op-ed pages to one anti-Israel polemic after another. In today’s NYT, Jim Rutenberg pens a major piece titled “Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again, Against Hagel.”

Like Alterman, Rutenberg uses his pen to scald those dreaded neocons, who hold a “worldview” that “remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.” By singling out neo-conservatives, it is the purpose of the article to undermine the arguments against Hagel by making it appear they are those only of one extreme and unpopular political current. That is why writers like Alterman and Rutenberg never let their readers know that a Democrat as mainstream as Chuck Schumer has carefully refrained from giving Hagel’s nomination support, and that other major Democrats who are not neocons question the nomination as well.

Notice also his extreme characterization of the neocons as a group that wants “pre-emptive strikes against potential threats,” when in fact all that has been argued is that the military option remain very strongly on the table. He also adds the canard that they want to impose democracy everywhere “by military means if necessary.”

Then, note the attribution of the campaign to William Kristol as its linchpin, as if others who are not in Kristol’s camp have not made many of the same arguments. Kristol is correct when he replies that these people suffer from “neoconservative derangement syndrome.”

In his article, Mr. Rutenberg inadvertently confirms Kristol’s assessment, since he projects overwhelming power to the neocons, giving them almost as much as Hagel and his supporters attribute to AIPAC.

Then there is a great conspiracy: Rutenberg writes that Sheldon Adelson sits on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which was “among the first to criticize the Hagel nomination.” The sad truth is that most people are not even aware that the RJC exists, and its influence, as far as I can see, is nowhere near as important as the mainstream bi-partisan AIPAC, which is always misrepresented by those on the Left, like Mr. Alterman, as a monster of the far Right.

If you think Rutenberg is an objective reporter or writer, look at his technique, exemplified in what follows. He brings up Richard Perle, branded for years by his enemies as “the prince of darkness,” who, he lets readers know, “never served in the military.” He contrasts that with his stress on the fact that Senator Hagel fought valiantly in Vietnam, had “two Purple Hearts from his service” there, and has “shrapnel embedded in his chest.” That, he says, gives Hagel “a unique perspective on war.”

Perhaps. But we know that there are many who served, who have been seriously wounded, and who have reached conclusions quite different than those reached by Mr. Hagel.

Does his service to our country mean that his position on foreign policy questions is correct, and that those who differ are wrong? John McCain takes a different position. He too suffered greatly as a result of his service in Vietnam. Would Mr. Rutenberg or Mr. Alterman use this to make the argument that John McCain is correct in his desire to stand tough against Iran?

“Hagel opposed the successful surge in Iraq bravely instituted by George W. Bush.”

Opponents of the war argued from its beginning that the force used was inadequate to the task. This proved true almost immediately when it became clear that the US had no cogent follow-up plan to the ouster of Saddam. Rumsfeld’s comment on the ensuing chaos: “Stuff happens.” Then, when the insurgency began, Bush said, “Bring it on!” And they did, for the next five years.

Hey, the Bushies themselves claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Andy Card, W’s chief-of-staff, stated that the war would cost no more than $400m. As for Halliburton, they did very well in the war, making billions. And as for Bush trying to “avenge his daddy,” I’ll leave that to the psychiatrists and psychologists.

It will not be enough for that toady senator Schumer to oppose the Hagel nomination once he knows there are enough votes to confirm him anyway. He should be leading the fight against Hagel. Sadly, he will claim he tried to “lead from behind”. He is hanging on any way he can to replace Harry Reid as majority leader, principles be damned. He is the Prince Charles of the Senate.

So now anyone who opposed our disastrous and unjustified involvement in Iraq is the enemy? Sure, we may wish that Hagel was more of a warmonger, ready to “exercise American power” at the drop of a hat (and at the expense of American lives and resources), but the sorry neo-cons, you’ve been discredited.

You stooges managing the “good war” into sound defeat as we attempt to unglue your lips from jihadi ass apparently aren’t performing terribly adequately either, being my Vet friends hold your traitorous dear ilk Brutus in contempt, not worthy of a bullet but a sound fragging would do quite nice. I never hear much anything detrimental of neo-cons, but I hear a lot about the cowardice of Obama and his resident groupie lip locks with wagging tongues and light loafers.

So if credibility is in question, give us something besides Dear Leader and his leadership as justification. Dear Leader ain’t cutting it with our military.

Hagel was worthless as Republican Senator, a vacillating blowhard who would have been blitzed in the next election by the good people of Nebraska after he played turncoat and farce, and chose to cut and run to save face rather than to go down in flames.

Any dimwit that either fails to recognize Hezbollah as a gang of murderous thugs, or can’t muster the brass to call Hezbollah a terrorist group under the banner of political correctness and cowardice, isn’t worthy to considered for anything of national security or importance.

This isn’t brain surgery to choose wisely – Israel is our staunchest ally and radical Islam is a plague upon the world, which is exactly why the useful idiot Obama will chose wrong. Any first candidate choice of Obama should be questioned strictly because it’s Obama’s first choice – the clearest indicator of personal ineptness. Because Obama is not qualified to buy lunch meat, much less play diplomat and world leader.

What I would like to know, is what criteria did the Republicans use to slate Chuck Hagel as a Republican in the first place. I mean beyond being able to win an election, what’s his redeeming Republican qualities? Really I don’t hear much support among his former collegues. So are the parties really just playing parts in the farce otherwise known as the grand march left?

With Hagels record of pussyfooting around tough confrontations, and using MCarthyist tactics against moderate opponents, who needs him to fill any position at all?
Just leave this position empty, and address entities and crises with the same lame, limp-wristed, and feckless, diplomacy as is the custom with this regime.
Look at the money saved that Obama can claim!
Besides; Obama has more spare time now that he doesn’t have to campaign for another term. He can do this while he’s out smoking a cigarette, or while he’s on the john with nothing to read.
Or maybe, while traveling between tees, which everybody knows, are going to set a record during this term.

Yes, McCarthyism is a standard charge of the Left when they’re too busy to make an argument. But nowadays the term has lost the historical context that previously only the deepest of deep thinkers provided it.

In his 1976 copyrighted introduction to Lillian Hellman’s “Scoundrel Time,” Garry Wills wrote the following:

“It is unfortunate that McCarthyism was named teleologically, from its most perfect product, rather than genetically — which would give us Trumanism.”

Yes, McCarthyism is a standard charge of the Left when they’re too busy to make an an argument. But nowadays the term has lost the historical context that previously only the deepest of deep thinkers could provide it.

You should also emphasize that in 2000 Hagel was the only US senator to refuse to sign a letter addressed to Boris Yeltsin expressing concern about the safety of Russian Jewry. This along with Hagel’s disdain and indifference to the Nebraska Jewish community demonstrates that Hagel is full of animus against Jews. Certainly, if he had behaved the same way toward Africans or Afro-Americans he would no stand no chance of being confirmed in the Senate. Obviously, there is one standard for blacks and another one for Jews.

I guess professional Jew must mean a Jew who cares about the future of their people and their home. So for myself, I thanks the windbag, and as was so eloquently stated in fiddler, “may god bless and keep him… far away from us!”

As Radosh correctly notes, Eric Alterman only identifies himself as a Jew as cover for his consistent and often hyperbolic bashing of Israeli policy and those who come to its defense. On the other hand, he is a professional smear artist who uses his perch on The Nation and other left-wing outlets to practice his trade, as Radosh so aptly illustrates. And that Alterman has succeeded in turning his career as a professional smear artist into a tenured position in the English Department of Brooklyn College, CUNY, is a telling, though not surprising, indictment of today’s academic culture.

As for Chuck Schumer, anybody who knows him — I did, barely, when he was a Congressman — knows that he is only truly interested in climbing the greasy pole. No politician calculates what works or doesn’t work to that end with more cold-blooded precision than he does. Consequently, given his ardent, consuming ambition to eventually become Reid’s successor I never doubted he would support Hagel. Today’s news of Hagel’s’ letter to Barbara Boxer, telling her how much he respects gays and loves Israel, provides Schumer with the perfect excuse to do what he was already programmed to do: come out in support of Hagel’s nomination.

Fascinating how in their fever leftists are reduced to one word insults. Toss in “hate” for general purpose bile and the biggie, racism or racist for criticizing Obama. The last especialy bizarre because it was Obama who spent 20 years in a screaming, black racist church, and lied about it, and he happens to have the same politics as two other famous Americans, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid.
The insane mind can come up with some strange things.

I have doubts about Hagel’s character and judgment, but my inclination is to go with the president’s choice; it is generally not a good precedent to oppose a nomination unless you feel the person involved is a radical danger to the nation and its interests. Hagel in no way qualifies for that sort of characterization. I believe opposing his nomination will be more damaging to supporters of Israel than allowing it to go through; the leaderships of both A.I.P.A.C. and the Anti-Defamation League (I am a member of the latter) seem to agree.

That said, I am very disturbed by the tenor of the argument over Hagel’s nomination, on both sides. Opponents of his nomination have turned Hagel into a litmus test over Israel, and that gives all the Israel-haters ammunition to say: “See? It’s only those neo-cons/chickenhawks/Israel fifth-columnists, who care only for the interest of Israel and its racist/expansionist/war-mongering Likud government, who oppose Hagel. REAL Americans who care about America support him.”

As for some of Hagel’s supporters, where do I begin? Richard Cohen, Roger Cohen, Dana Milbank, Nicholas Kristof, and Myra MacPherson (author of the memoir of Vietnam veterans “Long Time Passing”) all seemed, within hours of one another in the print editions and/or websites of the two most influential newspapers in the country, to be dictating their columns by rote from the same tired list of talking points. Most (not all) implied that it was the chicken-hawk brigade opposing Hagel. Worse, there was a near-insistence on reflexive genuflection before Hagel’s war record. Apparently this was reason enough to discredit any criticism of Hagel. I respect and honor Hagel and his two Purple Hearts, his life-on-the-line service in Vietnam, but that doesn’t mean he’s infallible in word or deed. No one would argue that in the case of say, Douglas MacArthur or George S. Patton, both multi-decorated combat vets.

On both sides, as, sadly, with so many political debates over the vital issues confronting our country, there is the same tired belief in the vileness of the motives of the other side and therefore the ready-made excuse to dismiss the opposing side’s arguments out-of-hand.

Two last points. Chuck Schumer, the most vociferous supporter of Israel on the Democratic side in the U.S. Senate, has today indicated his support of Hagel’s nomination, and I tend to respect his opinion on the matter. And, second, anyone who takes seriously anything Eric Alterman, the very epitome of the infantile, stuck-in-adolescence, nyah-nyah-I’m-not-and-you-are political commentator and “public intellectual,” says, should have his or her head examined.

Although near impossible, I overestimated the integrity of Schumer. 90 minutes with Hagel and he figured out that the man’s entire history of disdain for Israel and Jews was a mirage. Not really, the meeting was just an excuse to stab a large part of his constituency in the back. Of course Hagel, on the other hand, figured out that he was right all along realizing that Jews like Schumer were empty suits who would sell out the moment they could advance their own career. Hagel may be a dolt, but he saw right through Schumer.